Talk:Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex/Archive 2

Series Page for SAC

I'm beginning to think SAC is in serious need of a series page. Look how the series has expanded: two 26 episode T.V. seasons, two season compilation OVAs, one full length movie, three written novels, two video games, and some manga releases which I really don't know much about. At this point, the sub-series needs a hub page for aspects relating to specifications about SAC's world, the future of the series (which I feel is the big point, as otherwise infotmation about the future of the series would have to be posted on every major release's page to reach a proper audience), timelines, as well as other things. SAC has become a media franchise unto itslef and needs to handled that way.SeiADP (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Technology section

Don't you think we should remove the technology section? This article isn't meant to explain the universe of stand alone complex and the section has no references and it appears to have some original research aswell. What do you all think?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Such information is usually included in a separate article - and in fact, there already exists an article about the universe of Ghost in the Shell, located here. I am going to go ahead and remove it after I have reconciled the section with the Technology section in World of Ghost in the Shell. In particular, the images used in this section can be added into the World of Ghost in the Shell article where appropriate. -BloodDoll (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I was thinking some of the reception could fit into the Music of Ghost in the Shell article since it covers some musical score reception.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

B Rank

I changed the article to B rank. If anyone disagrees, it can be changed back and show which ones need work.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Novel articles merge

Those novel articles should be merged. They have no references and they have been stubs for over 4 years already. --Mika1h (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but i also think we should merge the OVA on here as well. Those articles have been like that for 2 years. So this is what i was thinking, we make a Media section, and put all three novels into one subsection called "Books", because it seems the novel series doesn't even have that much of a concrete plot. And also merge the laughing man OVA onto here, since the only difference from the original is the english voice cast.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above suggestions. The novel articles barely exist, let alone justify individual articles and the OVA articles are just pointless.SeiADP (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Story

I wish to point out that the story section of the article is lacking seriously in matters of references and the description itself is incomplete. The following passage - 'Due to Section 9's investigation of the Laughing Man incident ended up implicating top executives of micro-machine corporations and prominent members of the Japanese government in criminal activity, Section 9 becomes a target of a public misinformation campaign to discredit it. In addition, extensive efforts are made to eliminate Section 9 members at all costs. Near the end of the series, Section 9 is declared a rogue organization by the Japanese government. To survive, Section 9 members carry out an elaborate deception, leading the Japanese government and military forces to believe Section 9 members have all been killed; Section 9 itself is temporarily disbanded by chief Aramaki.' It is lacking as it does not elaborate on how the officials at that time, after the laughing man incident (the kidnapping) were actually responsible for all that had happened (the corporate hijacking). The Officials were the ones who had attacked the pherma companies and in return had asked for money, after which they (the phermas) were all given govt. money to offset the losses they had incurred.

It would be very kind of someone if they verified this against a reliable source and reference the section.

And as for my opinion on the merging, the novel stubs should be merged with the ghost in the shell manga, not anime. Manga is the starting point for the whole thing, all the novel stubs should be referenced under it. Hextad8 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think what was originally proposed was a merger with the SAC anime (that was simply an added suggestion by the second poster on the matter), which I too would disagree with, but instead a merger of the three into one page of their own which is something I could agree with. As for your recommendation, I feel that is somewhat flawed just like the the recommendation of merging it with the SAC anime. Not only are written novels and visual novels (manga) considered fairly different formats, but the manga and SAC novels take place in different continuities. Doing so would be like merging SAC SSS into one of the GitS movie pages, but with the added issue of different media formats. SeiADP (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well lacking, isn't really much we can do. the point is to havea brief summary. but if you have any quotes, episode numbers, and character stating this, this would be really easy to source. As for the novels, they are based off of the stand alone complex, and stand alone complex is based off of the original manga long with the film, so it makes sense to put them here. the novels are called "ghost in the shell:STAND ALONE COMPLEX"Bread Ninja (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think plot summaries usually have to have specific references - take a look at GA or FA status anime articles and you'll see what I mean. A plot summary that achieves consensus among editors for clarity and sufficient coverage is fine. But obviously the plot summary has not reached that point. I too think it needs more work. -BloodDoll (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, the plot summary used to explain the difference between the original Laughing Man Incident (the kidnapping by Aoi) and the subsequent fake Laughing Man Incidents manufactured by politicians and corporations to make money. That explanation is entirely missing now, and it is an important part of the plot - it is the reason why Section 9 is eventually declared a rogue organization and efforts are made to destroy it. Without that explanation, the part of the plot summary that discusses the criminal activities of the corporations and politicians makes no sense.

At any rate, I have an earlier version of the plot summary still available on my talk page. Although I think it's probably too long and could be cut down, I believe it sufficiently explains the most important dimensions of the plot. The current one is somewhat deficient in that regard. I will start working on cutting down the version on my talk page and see if we can't use that version instead of the current one. -BloodDoll (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats not really the point. We only give the very basic. We don't have to explain everything in order for the person to understand, sure you'll be missing the "how", but in the end you still get the plot summary at it's most basic form. regardless, if anything, the Laughing man incident should be explained in the setting since it's a time event that already happened before the story. Sometimes the plot doesn't have the most important information, but at the same time, most important is defined by the fan. We have to stay basic.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that it requires the very basic, but the very basics need to include important plot points. The difference between the original Laughing Man incident and the subsequent fake incidents is an important part of the plot. Right now, the explanation about the fake Laughing Man incidents is missing, which would lead a reader unfamiliar with the anime series to become confused when reading about the criminal activity of the politicians and the corporations. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article - as such, it needs to be written with the assumption that the reader is unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Also, we do still have some room for an expansion of the plot summary. Look at Madlax's plot summary. It is longer than the plot summary in this article. Also, it explains important plot points crucial to the story - just as the difference between the original Laughing Man incident and the fake Laughing Man incidents is crucial to the plot of Stand Alone Complex.

I have worked on a more expanded version of the plot summary and it is available to view here. This can be cut down further if necessary, although I still think we need to preserve the parts explaining the difference between the original Laughing Man incident vs. the fake Laughing Man incident. -BloodDoll (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to expand. why should we? trust me, we both know this is enough for the basics. Anything else in full detail isn't necessary and is probably information to please fans. i don't know how long i can keep saying this but this is enough. Wikipedia isn't a guide, true, i do think it could explain things slightly better, but i don't think we need to expand on the whole laughing man incident - fake laughing man incident and hwo they differ. However, i do believe this article needs a setting subsection in the plot to explain better in the setting section so the plot doesn't have to give full detail about it.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article needs to be written starting from the assumption that the reader knows nothing about the subject matter. Hence, the reader would know nothing about the plot. The fake Laughing Man incidents are a crucial part of the plot - it is what Section 9 eventually discovers, and why they are then hunted by the Japanese government. Not including an explanation of the fake Laughing Man incidents is therefore leaving out a significant plot point. If necessary, my own explanation can be cut down further from the version I have on my talk page, but I do think the explanation of the fake Laughing Man incidents needs to be included in the plot summary.

How about this:

After the kidnapping, a series of corporate terrorism and blackmail attacks occur. These are blamed on the Laughing Man, but were actually staged by politicians and corporations. The attacks were part of a massive stock manipulation scheme intended to benefit micro-machine CEOs and government officials, who became extremely wealthy as a result. Afterwards, the special police task force was formed to investigate the incidents. Worried that the truth would come out, the top officials involved in the fake incidents started spying on the police task force to make sure the truth about the fake incidents and the memo on cyberbrain sclerosis were not revealed.

That is relatively short and can simply be inserted in the appropriate spot in the plot summary.

As for the setting, it is already sufficiently explained in a section of its own. As I said, setting means location and time period, which we already have. The truth about the original Laughing Man incident is part of the plot of the series, thus it belongs in the plot summary section. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing it far too 2d. I'm talking about the initial interpretation of the laughing man incident. the truth should obviously be revealed in the plot, and is. just doesn't give us details. For a series that takes mostly into chronicles, it is best to summarize it the best we can, not explain it full as if it was story-telling (beginning-middle-end).Bread Ninja (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean about the initial interpretation of the Laughing Man incident. I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that.

And yes, it is best to summarize. Which is what the above explanation about the fake incidents does. It does not mention what the attacks are, how they are carried out, etc. which is portrayed in the series. But it is necessary to include because otherwise the part about Section 9 getting in trouble with the Japanese government makes no sense. If I did not know about Stand Alone Complex, I would be left wondering WHY Section 9 gets in trouble with the government. An incomplete understanding of the plot, you see? It is supposed to be a plot summary, hence it needs to summarize important plot points like the fake Laughing Man incidents. The short paragraph I suggested above does that. It can simply be included after the paragraph about the Laughing Man kidnapping. -BloodDoll (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Think about it carefully, the article does not need to mention what how they were carried out. this is a pretty brief summary. adding more in those parts mean adding more to other related parts to the plot. I admit the japanese goverment making no sense, but we don't even need to mention that the specifics. just government officials have went against security section 9 as they were about to be defraud. And we don't need completely understanding, just the basics...and something such the laughing man incident should not get anywhere up to a paragraph long. You're manner of wiking is far different from mine. i would put a vague story that most would understand, and not reveal to many plot information, as for yours is beginning - end.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about this then:

During the course of Section 9's Laughing Man investigation, Section 9 discovers evidence that suggests top micro-machine corporations and politicians staged fake corporate terrorism attacks for profit, and then blamed them on the Laughing Man. Because of these discoveries, Section 9 becomes the target of a public misinformation campaign to discredit it. In addition, extensive efforts are made to eliminate Section 9 members at all costs. Near the end of the series, Section 9 is declared a rogue organization by the Japanese government. To survive, Section 9 members carry out an elaborate deception, leading the Japanese government and military forces to believe Section 9 members have all been killed. Section 9 itself is temporarily disbanded by Chief Aramaki.

That would at least explain to a reader unfamiliar with the plot WHY Section 9 becomes hunted by the government, and also somewhat explain the original Laughing Man incident vs. the fake Laughing Man incident. Maybe in not as much detail as my original writeup, but still sufficient for a basic understanding of the plot. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

well i wouldn't say temporarily disbanded, just dont officially exist anymore. but this is pretty much the same. you can copy and paste it in if you like.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is IIRC. Aramaki says something like, "As of now, Section 9 is disbanded". I would have to go back and try to find it in the last episodes, but I wrote the previous plot summary after watching the anime. Pretty sure he disbanded it. After they survive the attacks, they are allowed to come together again... hence temporarily disbanded. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i though you were going to end it like that. Alright, glad this is all taken care of.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Status - what needs to be done?

Yup. I would prefer my own more detailed version, obviously, but I understand your POV on why it needs to be shorter. And this is a collaborative encyclopedia after all. Thanks for your patience. I think maybe we need to get someone else in here to tell us what else needs to be done before this can become a GA status article? Not sure what else is missing. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a number of things, the reception seems to lean towards only one site, we could find more reliable sources and expand on it. more information on development and various other information. I do plan on merging the first OVA and the novels onto here, and look up info so i can add the manga adaptation of stand alone complex. only been able to find it through jap amazon. overall these plans would potentially allow making a "media" section. The english OVA voice cast needs to be cited and thats all i can think of but maybe more can be done in the plot such as citing episodes into it. which is a lil hard to do if you don't know the episode # or exact words. Sometimes there are scripts out thereBread Ninja (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How does it lean towards one site? All the cited reviews are from different sites, so far as I can tell. I think it's pretty balanced. I agree on the need for a potential media section - lots of work there though, so it might be useful to create a media section on this talk page to discuss what we need to include in it. English OVA voice cast citation could be difficult to find. Overall I think your focus on a potential media section is spot on. Once that is complete then I guess we will need to get it peer reviewed and assessed for GA status. P.S. - changed the name of the section to reflect what we are discussing. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we also need to start archiving the references. I just removed two dead links from the references. One was a review of SAC, the other was the Tokyo Anime Fair's 2003 awards page. The latter is very important. Fortunately I was able to find the page on the Wayback Machine, so I added the archive url and date to the reference. We need to look at the rest of the references and try to archive them to prevent more dead links. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on that...the reception is overlinked with the same refs is what i meant. one sentence having over 4 refs and such. I'll see what i can do for the media section. Apparently the OVA have had a different dub cast in order to not confuse it for a remake. The novels will be an easy merge, along with the others. i'll work on that right away because my time is running short.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Reception section considerably. Removed some possibly unreliable RS and condensed. The number of refs in the first paragraph is probably fine - all the reviews cited mentioned those aspects of the series, so citation is justifiable. As for the same refs multiple times, the problem is that there are not that many reliable sources for anime reviews. The ones there are pretty much it for this series, so citing the same ones multiple times seems to me to be frankly unavoidable. At any rate, we can get a peer review and outside assessment when the media section is done with - that will tell us if the reception section needs to be changed at all. -BloodDoll (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is the reviews are being taken together all in one, instead of actually doing each review individually. it might take some time but we should really attempt to separate the reviews.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I added a lot more info. Finally was able to fill in a manga section and put sources for both manga and novel. OVA is what's killing me though because I need to verify that the english cast has a different voice cast. I also made production a little more clear by adding more info but that obviously needs to be expanded aswell.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Against GA criteria (Non official review)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm usually too lenient on my reviews so I could be off here. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Are "Stand Alone" episodes the main term for episodes that do not involve the main plot "The Laughing Man"? Production would be more appropriately placed under "Media" under the "Anime". Same with "Music".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead does not adequately sum up the article. Some of the information in the lead/infobox is not covered or sourced in the main body. Date formats conflict, some are in year day month, others are in month day year. Besides for the articles title, other titles should only be italicized.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Most likely not

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Doesn't look like anything is missing

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   OST image does not add more overall understanding to the article and should be removed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Captions should not have periods

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I suggest looking at Mobile Suit Gundam SEED as a model.

P.S, Template:GAList2 was used to critique the article and was not used, in this case, as an official GAN review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, ill see what I can do to fix these. Most likely create an anime subsection.Lucia Black (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one minds I'm going to change the formatting to month-day- year format as that's the most common format.Lucia Black (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucia - given what DragonZero has said here, I'll restore the italics, remove emboldening from titles other than the main one, and remove the OST cover. NJMcLellan (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jumping in here as I saw this at WP:ANIME/ASSESS - I feel that the lead needs help to comply with WP:LEAD - it's too choppy at the moment. It does not include the plot, nor any reception of GITS:SAC. The "setting" section could be merged into the lead to provide fictional context there. I thought 'tachikoma' was the plural of 'tachikoma'? I feel the original movie poster needs a stronger argument in line with WP:NFCC, as it seems to be mainly decorative in function. I feel the prose quality of the reception section is not what it could be - it is made out of soundbites, many without in-text attribution. A complete rewrite of this section would benefit the article enormously. The further readings could also be incorporated to provide a broader perspective on the subject, and the literature consulted to make sure that there are no glaring omissions in sources or in content. For nitpicks - providing translated titles for the Japanese references (using |trans_title - you can see this in use at Chihayafuru) and making sure citations are consistently presented would be nice. It shouldn't be a GA-fail thing, but it would be nice. I notice the bottom of the page has a "use day-month-year since January 2011" template, and yet a month-day-year format is currently in use. Which was used first? The article should WP:RETAIN what was originally used. If I were reviewing this article, I would be tempted to pass the article, but I'm not sure that I could do so, because of the more major problems above. (not the nitpicks.) I would rate this article at C-class at present, partially due to prose, partially due to sourcing. Hope this helps. :) --Malkinann (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to place a request here for some help in copy-editing. --Malkinann (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'm currently looking for information on the anime and OVA sections to expand. But I'm also attempting to rewrite the reception. At the moment it doesn't need to be completely rewritten, just the areas using individual reviews as general accepted fact.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Image changes

Lately there have been some good edits around here however when it comes to image replacement that's something we should normally discuss. Anyways, I do think the image of the original should be replaced as the major and tachikoma can't be seen properly but I don't agree it being replaced just the logo. I think it would be better to find an image of a DVD cover.Lucia Black (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies: I was trying to exercise my best judgement, not to rock anyone's boat. The tradition on Wikipedia regarding TV shows (anime or otherwise) seems to be to use the show's logo or title card in the Infobox - though that doesn't mean that it's the correct choice. There's a size consideration, too: a logo is clearly identifiable at the small size required for the Infobox, where other images (such as DVD covers) may not be. A quick Google image search for "stand alone complex" doesn't yield many suitable options, to my eyes at least. Is there something specific you've seen that you feel would be more appropriate? (I'll remember to discuss changes like these in future.) NJMcLellan (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its fine. I just giving small advice. Anyways I found this image of the japanese dvd box [ http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/aw/d/B000O77LG0?is=l&in=1 here]. However lacks the logo of the series. So ill continue to look.Lucia Black (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

At some point, the image of the GitS:SAC OST was removed from the music section. I am not sure what rationale was used, but I believe the OST cover should be included in the music section for illustrative purposes. I have added it back in. If anyone has a good reason why it should be removed again, please discuss it here before doing so. -BloodDoll (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From this article? I'm being a little passive on the images for now since I wanted to link a rationale that said we shouldn't, but I couldn't find one. So if someone removes them and brings up the rationale link, then we'll let it pass. I'm sure its ok to have one cover image as long as its the original ot I think.Lucia Black (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. My reasoning is that it certainly can't hurt the article quality to include the OST cover for illustrative purposes. But I am open to removal if a good reason for it is provided first. -BloodDoll (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I unintentionally removed the cover during cleanup. I agree that its inclusion is reasonable. NJMcLellan (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

N.b.: DragonZero's GA review (November 2011) noted a reason. (Not that that's necessarily a definitive opinion.) Memetics (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tachikoma series clarification

Just to let you all know, the tv short series alongside the anime called tachikomatic days and the manga based on the tachikomas do not have the same name (despite being based on the tv short), therefore we can't call the manga by the short tv series because the manga hasn't released in english. Both are pronounced tachikoma na hibi in japanese however the tv short translates as "a daily tachikoma" and the manga translates as "tachikoma cracks". I know Anime News Network is usually correct, but for some reason they got the translation wrong in the news and they're not using the english title so it made things worst.Lucia Black (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction needs a lot of work.

There is a great amount of work done here by all of the contributors but there lacks a key ingredient in the form of a plain English description right at the start. It is understood that many of you are passionate about the content of this page and the positive energy is reflected in the size of the article. But to an educated reader, this entire page jumps into the story with references to "Section 9" without sufficient explanation of the background, key supporting ideas and context information.

As a result, it is difficult to understand what this is all about without a lot of external research.

Please consider a more comprehensive outline for this topic, as it attracted me and possibly others here through the music references. The way that it is written creates a barrier to understanding and assumes a basic knowledge of the topic area already.

Please do not consider this to be a complaint, as I am genuinely interested to learn about this story in particular and anime in general. Andmark (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look it over and give more of an explanation over Public Security Section 9. Also. Note that there are other articles that give expansion.Lucia Black (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Commentary

2chan

Q: This will be a question for Sato-san. Not to be too discursive, but I really want to take this opportunity to ask: What has been your favorite episode of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, and why?

Dai Satō: Okay. It’s hard to say which one is my favorite. This is because animation is never made by a single person. It is made by 200 to 300 people. It just so happens to be that my name is credited at the top, and that’s the reason why I get asked these questions… Is it ok if I answer this question in terms of which one I had the most fun writing?
In that case, the ninth episode in the first season “The Darkness of the Net.” This is because, out of the entire twenty minutes, the main character does not make an appearance until the very last two or three minutes. It’s just a bunch of people talking. I spoke with the director, Mr. Kamiyama (director of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex) about the idea of having twelve crazy men in the episode. Intrinsically, the idea behind it was to incorporate the popular culture of “2-Channel,” an online community in Japan. When writing it, I intended from the very beginning to seriously and fully incorporate that world. As worried as I was about getting this recognized, those who most appreciated it were the “2-Channelers.” This made me very happy… Does this answer satisfy you? It’s a delicate matter . . .

9/11 and setting

DS: I’d like to answer this question, of how to address social themes from the standpoint of a scriptwriter. 9/11 occurred during the production of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. In the first season, we followed incidents which took place throughout the history of postwar Japan. The audience may not be familiar, but incidents such as Guriko-Morinaga, Midori Seizai [?] and Maruyama Vaccine [quack anti-cancer treatment] (poison/medical cases) are all things that anyone who has lived in Japan and read the news should remember one way or the other. The theme of the first season of the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex was to redevelop these incidents, and place them in a future.
However, 9/11 took place during the production, which led me to depict the cotemporary world in the second season, called the Second Gig. To borrow Eiji Otsuka’s word, the “war scene” of everyday life: the images, key words, voices, words, and everything else that influence creators, regardless of whether or not they are conscious of them.
For example, this was never clearly mentioned in the show, but the second season ended up dealing with the issue of Japan’s geographical isolation as an island, and the government’s persistent diplomatic policy to reject refugees. Though it wasn’t my intention, my work somehow led me to write the script on “what sort of a world might we be living in, if the government changes its policies, and Japan accepts the refugees?” In truth, I wanted to draw the question of: “how do we define humanity?” by using robots and robotified humans as characters of the season. That was the intended theme of Stand Alone Complex and Ghost in the Shell, but the story changed as one theme substituted itself for another. It’s not what we intended. It happened largely due to what was happening around the world then.
As Mr. Azuma has said, the timing of the releases, as well as the feelings of both directors and creators as they were producing, can often become illuminating points of the work. I wasn’t sure if everyone understood these elements, yet judging from people’s comments tonight, I realize that I’ve communicated them. But again, as a creator, such elements are unintended, and this probably goes for Mr. Anno with his Evangelion too. Social conditions influence creators. After some filtering and processing, the works emerge.

http://www.japansociety.org/otaku_unmasked --Gwern (contribs) 05:16 21 January 2012 (GMT)

Tuberculosis over Murai

seems there's this bit of problem with the current naming of the vaccine. I vote for Murai vaccine over tuberculosis. The Murai vaccine is a fictional vaccine that is affected by the fictional disease. Also, even if we go for real world terms over fictional terms, the issue is the name tuberculosis vaccine actually accurate name for a fictional vaccine.Lucia Black (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it "the Murai vaccine" without any further explanation is using in-universe language: see WP:IN-U. In the series, the "Murai vaccine" is described as a tuberculosis vaccine. Fans of the series, therefore, might very well know it's a tuberculosis vaccine... but a broader audience would not. To preserve clarity of meaning, and avoid in-universe style writing (which can be confusing for a broader audience), referring to it as "a tuberculosis vaccine" is better than just "Murai vaccine". Additionally, the sentence really cannot be reworded to include both "Murai vaccine" and a reference to tuberculosis - the sentence is long enough already, and verging on awkward: "The Laughing Man is revealed to be a computer hacker named Aoi, who discovered an internal memo revealing that a tuberculosis vaccine was more effective than micro-machine therapy at treating a form of sclerosis called cyberbrain sclerosis." -BloodDoll (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

However, it's not in-universe language because it's not non-fictional. Also note that calling it tuberculosis vaccine is a lot more closer to original research. For example, if a fictional drug was called something that had similar features to steroids, we don't call it steroids because it's not a real world item. I also still think we can rewrite the story, a bit more linear, as discovering how he obtained the memo is unnecessary.Lucia Black (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

ref

• [1]

Some refs.Lucia Black (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Character list

The character list is important, it must remain here. The list page is completely inaccurate and jumbled up in places. Do not remove it again without discussing it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. The list as it stands has nothing to do with their appearances in the Stand Alone Complex media and it's just a general overview of their characters, which duplicates content found on List of Ghost in the Shell characters. Just because you believe that page is a problem does not mean we need to keep material here that is unnecessary. Fix that one instead of insisting on having redundant information here. Also, you have been constantly reverting other constructive edits I have made to this page, particularly cutting down on the excessive plot summary per WP:PLOT as well as other general clean up in your attempts to force there being a list of characters here. Stop complaining that things are wrong or inaccurate and fix them FFS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Compromise we have a brief summary of the characters because there are some new ones such as Tachikomas and Laughing Man. But, instead we don't give a bulletin list of each one.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues with plot

its too long, and i'm currently working on it to getting it upto GA level. But it shoudl be apparent that we don't need Solid State Society's plot here as it has its own article, not even a summary. WE didn't have a summary of the second season when it was split and we shouldn't need one for the film. THe first two seasons already take up too much space.Lucia Black (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So summarize it. Who cares?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:We dont need the plot of the film in general. It already has its own article to go in detail. Its best to be removed to make more room for the plot of the topic that this article focuses on and that is the first two seasons.Lucia Black (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The film is part of the Stand Alone Complex canon and should be described in some form, minimally, on this page. Not completely removed just because another article exists that's in a shit shape.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:I somehow knew this was because of canonicity but its simply irrelevant here. Whether its canon or not, the OVA/film is still mentioned here. How about this, final compromise. i summarize it to "one to two sentence" and i move it to a section where its dedicated to the OVA. If you don't agree, then we go to the trouble of third opinion.Lucia Black (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Because it is plot, a short(er) summary of the film's plot should be included in the plot section, with a link to the film's article there. In addition, a section on the film should also be included on the page but it should not focus on the plot but rather the release. It's not this complicated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The film is separate media from the Tv series. its considered its own entity. We don't see Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) have a summary of the sequel in Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence.Lucia Black (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Lucia. This article IS titled Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex; it explicitly covers the two anime seasons titled Stand Alone Complex, namely SAC and SAC 2nd GIG. The film is separate, not a continuation, and is also of a different media type (film rather than TV series). Therefore including a plot summary in this article is not appropriate. -BloodDoll (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)